Friday, November 27, 2009

Acceptable Animation Design

Appropriate Dress and Behavior: We have been asked by the management of the hotel to inform all patrons that shirts, pants/shorts, and shoes are required for safety reasons in all public areas of the hotel. Unnecessarily revealing clothing is the same as not wearing any at all. Once again, this is an area where common sense must be used, and convention security will be allowed to exercise discretion. A good measure would be to think: "Would I wear this in a public park?"

The furry community is known for its friendly hugging, scritching, and holding hands, all of which is entirely acceptable. However, please keep in mind that not all people may share the same view of what is acceptable in public, and that our behavior is representative of the fandom as a whole. Common sense should be a good measure in what behaviors are permissible in public. Regardless, if you feel the need to express deep, physical affection for another we ask that you kindly retire to your hotel room. PLEASE don't make the staff have to ask you - it's uncomfortable for us and embarrassing for you.

76 comments:

While I agree that everything else here is right-out hideous, what exactly is wrong with "The Fantastic Mr. Fox?" I understand that a lot of people just get bugged by Wes Anderson, but it isn't as if that movie was made to look like a typical animated movie anyway. The colors are vibrant and set up in coherent schemes, the characters kind of look like hand-made dolls, and the backgrounds are set up like a diorama or other kind of display. (Kind of a 2D flatness that I've never seen in a stop-motion film.) While I can appreciate that it won't agree with everybody's tastes, I don't think it to be objectively ugly or kitschy.

I'm frightened- I truly am frightened. Couldn't these people think of something a bit more wholesome to do- like a weekend meth binge? Oh wait- maybe that's what made them think this was acceptable behavior in the first place.

I agree somewhat with Collin. I enjoy the Mr. Fox designs. I'm not sure if it's fair to compare puppets with 2D character designs. Kind of comparing apples and pears. Especially since Anderson says it's an homage to Rankin/Bass. Now if you want to argue character design between Rankin/Bass, Mr. Fox, and Henry Selick (...and Ray Harryhausen); I'd totally be game...

I know it's easy to bash on furries; there are a whole bunch of amateur artists, and a whole bunch of broken or not-yet-formed people, and a lot of people using it as a metaphor for their desires. But there are also some people doing lovely work. I won't subject them to your ire, though I know a few who read your blog; I'll just say that I wander in and out of the edge of furry stuff myself, and offer up my own work for ridicule.

It's just another way to stylize, to tell the story. Why is Huckleberry Hound's level of human/animal mixing, and of abstraction, any better than that of the movie at hand, or that other cartoon about foxes, Disney's "Robin Hood"?

And as animation design, hell no I wouldn't want to animate every strand of fur, but the 3D guys can do that. Let them experiment, and maybe they'll finally find a swath of abstractions that work like we have in 2D. I dunno how well "Mr. Fox" works, I haven't seen it in motion.

I will personally give Guy $50,000 is cold, hard American cash if he can prove he's capable of posting a comment that isn't a sniping deflation of someone else's comment and nothing more or less. Never mind that I agree with him.

When I look at the designs for Fantastic Mr. Fox, I just don't feel like I'm looking at "Furry" art. The proportions aren't exactly human so my mind seems to put it in the same category as something like, lets say, Wind and the Willows illustrations. And even though its not as charming as the designs in Emmet Otter's Jugband Christmas, I still put it in that category sooner than the stuff its being lumped in with here.

Either way it looks way more bearable than the newest Disney 2D offering, so I'm gonna give it a shot.

Those taxidermy photos crack me up especially the sword fighting squirrels. Reminds me of the time I was at an antique store and saw this:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3056/2761502929_54b4e34339_o.jpg

the characters in mr fox where damn scary ! and what was with the compositions why was so much of this film that was in the center of the screen ?!it wasent even funny i was shocked at how meny people found it hilarious. and the animation was clunky and emotionless in my opinioim just shocked that so meany people liked it ?....

The worst part of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is that he's using Burl Ives in the soundtrack, will stick it in places where it disrupts whatever is going on in the story, and then he'll probably win awards for his brilliant ability to pick songs. And you know Wes Anderson likes Burl Ives ironically, like all other hipsters.

I used to be a furry artist until I worked on Lola Bunni's design and was made to realize the following: So long as an hour glass shape is part of any character, people will always perceive it as sexual. People are so programmed. Such a pity too, because my idea of Lola was a pre-Xena power-girl!

I will personally give Guy $50,000 is cold, hard American cash if he can prove he's capable of posting a comment that isn't a sniping deflation of someone else's comment and nothing more or less. Never mind that I agree with him.

I will personally give everyone in the animation community $50,000 if they start believing that they can believe anything before they have exhausted their supply of really dumb questions.

I'll promise it because it's totally impossible for it to happen.

I remember trying to have animation discussions on the internet. It is a distant memory. What everyone wants is a group of people who believe the same things they do to get together with and regurgitate their beliefs at each other. Average internet cartoon nerds are ridiculous man-babies who get furious when you do anything but talk about how EPIC WIN their childhood cartoons are. Most people in the industry react to anything that isn't praise of a cartoon or professional cartoonist like an office worker would react if you insulted their co-workers and office supplies. The people who post on Dumm Comics - and most of the creators - act just like the fans of guys like Buckley. I could go on and on.

The animation community is a really ridiculous, sad, really, really dumb place.

I lost my will to have anything to do with it a long time ago. I'm sure it would be an experience of uncomfortably rubbing together over my beliefs that nobody agrees with by this point. All I can do now is see something I can't believe can come out of the mouth of a human being, write my totally obvious refutation, and wonder why I have to do that. And why I bother.

I don't really see the point in ridiculing furries... the internet has shown us there's scores of crazy people out there, just let them get on with it. And Wes Anderson's movie looks like any other freaky Wes Anderson movie. The characters look like the actors he uses, and all of his films look like they've been stuck in some alternate 70's timewarp. That's his style, whether you like it or not. There's tons of people posting bad art on the internet (anyone for some crap manga?), such is freedom of speech and the lack of any art teachers who can actually draw. At college I was discouraged from trying to draw well, since that's craft, not "fine art". It's a shame we're all making up for lost time now.

I actually completely agree with you about the character designs! They're ugly as sin! I guess that was the original point of criticism towards the Fox movie, but I felt I had to defend it because I've been studying Wes Anderson films lately.

Hey Pasquale, have a problem with my gallery?I'm not as offended as I should be but seriously. What, are you trying to trying to start a fight between me and John Kricfalusi or something?I thought it was improper to single out other commenters maliciously on this blog. Or maybe I misread John's guidelines.

I don't hate furries Squirrely. I'm glad of 'em. The point I was making was that the Fox movie looks amateurish. I'm amazed I have to say it. I thought the pictures would be obvious to everybody.

Furry art is fan art. I drew fan art when I was a kid (not in furry style) and when I look at it now, I laugh at how good I thought I was when it's obvious a kid drew it. I would never expect a professional movie to use design that a fan would come up with - mine or anyone else's.

Although I did send some to Walt Disney when I was a kid and told him he could make a movie out of it and I wouldn't even charge him for it.

If I had saved it till today, I could probably sell it to a big studio now.

mr.fox is just a typical wes anderson movie, the color scheme, the flat look, the way its centered, all hallmarks of a wes anderson movie, the man is just being consistent. the furry thing...unless john is revealing something about himself lets just leave them alone shall we? ick!

John, I know you have better furry art hidden on your hard drive. No matter.

You might of missed a few pieces that fall under the "furry" umbrella. That is more than the usual dregs that people think of. You, of anyone should know better.

Anyways, for example, this, or this one is pretty cute. this one is classy, I love my drams of whiskey like anyone out there. or there is this if you like your artist to have higher concepts. Or there is this for something more high-fantasy in flavor. but I really love this bit of work, it would look cool on anyones wall. comic style is nice too. Squids, while slimy, are drawn by furries too. Furries love to draw action and we do love our cute. but its not all just fuffballs. They can down right moody. We are also not lost on the irony that can take place.

There are a few artists out there that push this fandom beyond the sterotype. so please, no more posts on medicore furry art. it looks stupid.

You'd said that Mr. fox is lame because it looks "furrist". which, for you, means "amateur-drawer-or-impersoner-of-to-humanized-animals"i'm getting it right?

would you mind, because I think all of us commenting your blog respect your opinion, what makes the characters in mr. fox bad constructed?

what do you think about Spiegelman's MAUS? or about this guy http://macanudoliniers.blogspot.com/, who pictures hiself as a rabbit? Or about does movies with talking animals, like babe? Or about Goofy?I'd love to read about the level of representation you seems to be talking about.

I don't plan on seeing the 'Fox' movie, Wes Anderson is obscenely overrated and I never cared for his centered composition. His new feature looks cheaply made, has ugly colors, and has George Clooney (who i dislike). BUt the main reason is that Roald Dahl was my favorite author when i was little, and barely anything that i saw that happening in the trailer happened in the book.

I think I still don't get the full meaning of "hip", but I think Wes Anderson is hip. absolutely.But he stablished a style, didn't copy it.So, don't insult it, just because YOU think it's overrated. Who overrated it? Critcs? who cares about them!You don't go saying that man sex charm is "overrated" just because you like women!in variety lies the taste, they say.

I've always loved animals, cartoon animals, ect. I think animal-like people are cool. I'm not so sure about "furries", but I like to draw anthros. In my opinion anthros are the more realistic animal people, not the blue and green-furred wolves with glowsticks and pink mohawks.

About the fox movie, it kind of gives me the creeps. They look too humanish and thin. It'd have to be absolutely hilarious to get me to see it.

Just saw Fantastic Mr. Fox. It was a lot more pleasant than the awful trailers made it appear and also very funny. In the context of the movie they even play around with the characters being half people- half animals just like they kind of were in the book. You know how that goes. The animal characters in books are furries anyway hence the fetish. I'm not quite sure how to describe it, but in some ways certain effects of the stop-motion animation were made better because they didn't try to make everything super smooth and perfect, like a henry selick stopmotion flick.Don't knock it til you see it is my main point. While it may not be your cup of tea design wise it ain't all bad. Especially not for stop motion animation.

If you wanted to discuss how the character designs looked amateurish, why on earth did you litter the post with "furry" videos and art? I'm not saying I like furries but it was a pretty clear jab at them, don't goddamn lie.

Also, you're seriously inspiring all your fans to shun any independent animation you disapprove of when you should really be encouraging it.

those drawings are so gross. and i see it too often from animation "majors" with the means to attend an art institute or college that has very low standards and either does not require a portfolio for admittance into the program or admits students who have never taken a drawing class before, or both.

Can't top Guy's post! I'll see the movie when it comes out on DVD. Maybe I'll see it in theaters, but I was planning on seeing the Princess and the Frog in theaters so I can fairly write a review on it.

I don't get that sentiment. "It's independent/different/not made by a company I recognize as a money-grubbing, soulless entity, so we should support it."

Not if it's awful. Easy as that. And what's with everyone being creeped out by the furry art? Are we that sensitized to the Internet? Maybe jj.am will help everyone adjust and get on the same page.

As for furry art itself, if you're going to draw it, be good at it. Don't suck. By that, I mean making uninspired goulashes of anime, Don Bluth, Disney and lame internet memes. At least then, if people don't like the concept of furry art, it's aesthetically pleasing.

I like wes anderson films, I like stop motion, but am not looking forward to this. I had a friend looking forward to the Roald Dahl Fox Stop Motion thing, and I said it creeped me out, it looked like Soft Porn, stop motion hentai for Furry subculture.

He had never heard of Furries so I gave him a one sentence discription, but now I have something to show him. Thanks.

I should have figured that john K would have the good taste and sense to post both celebrity as Voice Actors post and a Furry Post in reaction.I

Wow! Over 60 comments, and still going, ha ha. Well, I'm in the same boat as you John, I thought the designs for these characters were not that great and when I was in theaters I thought to myself, "I've seen much better stop motion action than this, is the film industry in this much of a rut to not even do nice stop motion anymore?" Also, this furry fandom, the whole thing is a big joke just like any other fandom. However, I have seen a few nice artists, (artists who were actually in the animating industry at one point of their life.) do some "decent" works here and there. I don't know if they dress up like children on Halloween like the clowns in the video but hey, as long as they're not doing it around me I don't give a f***.

It was a well drawn bad idea that creeped me out even when I was a kid and a big Disney fan.

Animal heads on human bodies. (Uncartoony ones)

Nerdy Fans of Disney and cartoons in general used to draw things like that, only badly and send them to each other in fanzines about cartoons. The style eventually became kind of a cult and people started dressing in costumes that looked like the badly drawn Robin Hood animal heads on human bodies. Nobody ever imagined this would become mainstream and acceptable one day.

The Fox movie has no design whatsoever. It looks like it was just lifted from 70s fanzines or a furry fan site.

Doing it in stop motion makes it also look like stuffed dead furries.

The fact that it's animated so lifelessly and without expression heightens the effect that they are furry corpses.

The connection is obvious and everyone I know who saw the trailer was shocked that something that looked so primitive actually was going to be in theaters.

That's it.

Simple. No big deal.

I just wanted to make the point that 50 years ago, you could never have anything that primitive sell. A low budget Hanna Barbera cartoon from 1958 looks (and sounds) leagues more professional and that's a sad irony of what has happened in the last few decades to our once fun culture.

Jesus. This is the 8th time I've explained it.

I apologize for making fun of amateurism. I didn't think anyone would even read the post. It's a throwaway.

Oh god, furry art. I admit to having done some atrocious furry artwork for a friend of mine, and I am ashamed to have contributed to the giant mess that is furry fandom. (My excuse is that I'm not really an artist and he paid me, so I'm not destroying any moral principles. Or maybe I am. Augh.)

Though the initial comment that sparked this does make me wonder: what is your take on animation that isn't comedy? Obviously you focus a lot on physical comedy, and things like composition and construction should carry over everywhere, but what different elements might you consider important when it comes to action or drama based animation?

Feel free to make another post mocking furries if this is a stupid question, because everyone enjoys those.

John, I've always been an admirer of your work, your creative ability and expression, and your blunt and unapologetic perception of the world and people around you... there's more, but I already sound like a filthy suck-up.

At any rate, I realize your post was criticism about the Mr. Fox movie (and honestly everyone I saw the movie with who wasn't high all shared your sentiments), but after spending more than a decade falling in and out of the furry scene myself, I've wanted to hear direct comment from someone who is on the other side of the fence. It, sadly, took me a while to see the subculture (if you want to call it that) for what it was, at least in its immature context. A group of self-assuring social rejects who live their life grasping at a fantasy that will never exist... whether it's sexual or not, and everyone knows that shit is out there within short grasp, this is a group of people so socially awkward that they can't even have a normal conversation with another human being. Disney, WB, HB, all the staple animation companies, comic books, children's stories, and even Ren & Stimpy have all been the major catalyst for this fan base, regardless of how much they may say otherwise. They've been spoon-fed talking animals since they were young, and they can't live without it.

Like a couple other people in your blog comments, I could post examples of people in the fanbase who actually have notable artistic talent or who are productive and contributing members of society, but that's pointless. I'm pretty sure that Becky Dreistadt girl you talked about in the past even has a page on a commonplace furry web gallery... But I've always been curious about how you, Don Bluth, Pete Laird, Rob Paulsen... ANYONE remotely involved with any part ofthe professional side of something that is nothing more than what IT is... how you all perceive and deal with these people who have so violently and illicitly violated and obscured all the creative work, talent, and endeavors that went into their initial creation. People say Ren & Stimpy is twisted, but what you have done with the series is tame in comparison to the obsession that has festered for decades with these people...

I'm sorry, I'm rambling painfully. But in all honesty, I would love to see at least one single blog entry from you on the whole topic. The history of it from your perspective and your experience in the industry (because lord knows this furry stuff has been around long before The Internet), your take on the style of approach or execution (from the cutesy crap, to the crazy technical photo-realistic stuff, to the stuff borne from genuine appeal of and appreciation for Traditional Animation, to even the typical badly drawn pencil or Wacom diarrhea)... I'm curious about how you feel toward furries' obsession with categorizing and associating anything and everything with an animal into their vague umbrella. You didn't draw Ren & Stimpy screaming "You're the pitcher, I'm the catcher" because you have some kind of fetish desire to see two cartoon animals having gay sex, you did it because it's funny, ridiculous, recognizable, and contextually appropriate to that particular moment/idea/atmosphere in the twelve and a half minute story you were telling. The guys at WB (Jones, Freleng, I don't know who specifically, don't kill me) didn't draw Bugs Bunny crossdressing because they got a chubby off of it, they did it because it was funny... and Bugs is a manipulative prick.

Or who knows, you might just draw a page full of dog genitals and say "You people are retarded. Stop it."